F 685 
. B59 
Copy 1 


REMARKS 


OF 


HONS. A.^IGGS AND D. S.'REID. 

7 

OF NORTH CAROLINA, 


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 2, 1856, 


THE BILL REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES 



AMISSION OP KANSAS AS A STATE. 





WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

7>/A 1856 . 










ADMISSION OF KANSAS 


fs 

Vi 

C 

4 

> 


Tlie Senate having under consideration the Bill reported 
from the Committee on Territories to authorize the peo¬ 
ple of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and 
8tate Government preparatory to their admission into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States,— 

Mr. BIGGS said: 

Mr. President, I know the Senate desires to 
obtain a vote to-day on this bill, and I therefore 
feel much hesitancy in proceeding, after the time 
which has been occupied by the Senator from 
Ohio, [Mr. Wade.] But since the adjournment 
yesterday, it has been pressed upon me as a 
public duty to say something in this debate; 
and although the short time allowed has very 
much embarrassed me, yet, as one of the Commit¬ 
tee on Territories, I feel constrained to obtrude 
tome remarks upon the consideration of the Sen¬ 
ate, crude as they may be.. Perhaps it may be 
concluded it is presumption’on my part, after the 
protracted and able debate on this subject, by 
other Senators more experienced and better quali¬ 
fied to enlighten the Senate and the country. I 
trust, however, I shall make some amends for 
intruding my views by an attempt at brevity as 
far as practicable. 

I shall not attempt an argument upon the con¬ 
troverted questions of congressional or popular 
sovereignty in the Territories. I propose to con¬ 
sider the question impartially, and, as I hope, in 
a practical point of view, and certainly with more 
calmness than has been manifested by the Sena¬ 
tor from Ohio, [Mr. Wade.] I know that south¬ 
ern men are represented at the North as violent 
and rash; but I hope a fair comparison can be made 
here this day between blind fanaticism, guided by 
passion, threatening to rule or ruin, and the calm 
suggestions of those who, knowing their rights 
undera written Constitution, boldly, firmly, but 
calmly, address the reason and judgment of the 
Senate and the country. From those who have 
heard the Senator from Ohio, can it be disguised 
that there is an evidentforeshadowing of a determ¬ 
ination on his part, and those sympathizing with 


him, if they cannot succeed at the ballot-box, to 
pull down this fair fabric of human liberty con¬ 
secrated by the blood and sacrifices of our fore¬ 
fathers? I hope it will not be expected of me to 
follow him in his tirade of denunciation. 

The great general principle involved in the 
Kansas-Nebraska act is the right of a people 
in a Territory to determine for themselves all 
questions of domestic policy preparatory to ad¬ 
mission into the Union as a State. The legis¬ 
lation of the country has arrived at that point, 
after many efforts to settle a different policy. If 
it be said that the principle is subject to some 
qualification, I shall not deny it, because the 
Federal Government assumes the power, with¬ 
out question, of aiding or assisting to some ex¬ 
tent, in carrying out this general principle in 
the means used and necessary to that end. All 
power, therefore, of every kind, is not vested in 
the people, or in the Legislature, of a Territory. 
If this were so, then how is it that we have a 
right to pass a law to authorize the people of a 
Territory to form a State constitution ? But with¬ 
out troubling ourselves with inquiries about 
abstract rights, it must bo admitted that, by the 
principle of the Kansas act, the right of the people 
of that Territory to settle the question of slavery 
(the great matter of contention) in their State 
organic act, is clearly asserted. Now, is it desir¬ 
able for the peace or prosperity of the country 
that this policy should be abandoned ? Would 
it be more safe or prudent to assert and insist 
upon the power of Congress to determine this 
question ? It may suit the purposes of those who 
boldly maintain that no more slave States shall 
ever be admitted into this Union, but I submit it 
isadangerous concession to be made by theSouttf. 
Permit the people in the Territories to determine 
that question, and admit new States with or with¬ 
out slavery, as they may decide, and let this be 
the settled policy of the Government, and then 
the South, the minority of this Confederacy, may- 
hope for some show of equality and justice on 
this distracting question; and it is a principle 
suitable to all times and circumstances. Abandon 




4 


this policy, and substitute the unlimited discretion 
of Congress, and what can the South expect., 
and what can the country hope for, but continued 
agitation, estranged feelings, fraternal'discord, 
endless disputes, tumult, disorder, and an ulti¬ 
mate dissolution of the Union ? As a remedy for 
the disorders now existing, will any Senator pro¬ 
pose that Congress shall assume and exercise this 
power? If there ever was a time when the legiti¬ 
mate power of Congress ought to be exercised, 
and all its wisdom invoked to suppress disorder 
and restore quiet, certainly this is the time. And 
will any sane man hazard his reputation in declar¬ 
ing that such a remedy is at all proper or feasible? 

Sir, much has been said about the sanctity 
of the Missouri restriction, and unmeasured de¬ 
nunciation has been heaped upon those who re¬ 
pealed that restriction. The Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. Wade] to-day has forcibly contended that 
no unjust measure could be permanent; and he 
has obviously exposed the spirit of the Black 
Republican party of which he prides himself upon 
being a member. By an application of his argu¬ 
ment, how could it be expected that such a meas¬ 
ure as the Missouri restriction could be maintained 
which enforced an inequality between States and 
citizens of the same country. I know in my own 
State it was by many considered an unwise policy, 
because, said they, the North would have been 
content to let it remain. Such persons argue 
from wrong premises. Is it not evident now to 
them, if it has not been before, that all the clamor 
heretofore had by what is now known and re¬ 
cognized as the Black Republican party, about 
the sanctity of the “Missouri compromise,” is 
sheer hypocrisy, as exemplified by avowals this 
day? The legislation of 1850 had disregarded the 
restriction, which was approved by the great 
Whig and Democratic parties of 1850 The lead¬ 
ing men of this new party had always been its 
most inveterate opponents. Do they now, when, 
by deception, they have increased their numbers 
at the North, propose to restore it? Not at all. The 
cry is now, as heretofore, no more slave States 
north or south of 30° 30'. 

And now, Mr. President, a few words as to 
this disturbing element, slavery. Do those who 
denounce the institution with so much bitterness 
act from motives of philanthropy to the master 
or slave ? If their motive'be 1o benefit the master, 
is it not a kind of intermeddling with other peo¬ 
ple’s affairs that is improper, not to say insulting ? 
is this the course they adopt about their neigh¬ 
bors’ affairs at home ? I venture to say, whenever, 
in any community at the North, such a rule of 
action obtains, nothing but discord and strife pre¬ 
vail. And in our intercourse,as political commu¬ 
nities, can it be expected that a different result 
will follow? Is it believed that slavery is a sin, 
and, as moralists or religious exemplars, you 
ought to reform the moral condition of the South ? 
I respectfully but earnestly suggest that you first 
reform all the immoralities nearer home, before 
you start as missionaries to foreign lands. Can 
you hope for success, by legal enactments and the 
strong arm of the law, to enforce such a great 
moral reform ? I have often said, and 1 no w repeat, 
that all attempts to legislate men sober, prudent, 
or religious, will end in abortions. A higher 
power than the arm of vain and feeble man is 
required for such great results. 


But do you desire to better the condition of the 
slave? It was well said the other day, by the 
Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Evans,] that, 
upon an examination of the history of the world, 
there is no African population anywhere on the 
face of the globe, in as great numbers, that are 
better cared for, better fed, or who have attained 
as high a state of civilization, as the slaves in the 
southern States; and this remark is concurred in 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bigler,] 
so far as a comparison is thus instituted between 
the free blacks of the North and the slaves of the 
South. Then, is it desirable to adopt a policy 
which, instead of benefiting, would inevitably 
injure the persons for whom, your sympathies 
are excited. But the Senator from New Hamp¬ 
shire [Mr. Hale] yesterday took occasion to 
remark that his course on the present question 
was not dictated by sympathy for the negroes, 
but his sympathy was now excited for the white 
Saxon bees swarming from the New England 
hive. It is true he wished it understood that he 
had not lost all sympathy for the blacks, being 
reminded, as he said, of the gratifying token of 
regard he had received from thenegroesin Boston, 
for his fervent efiorts in their behalf in connection 
with the execution of the fugitive slave law, soon 
after it was passed by Congress. 

But let us see the result of this policy of the 
Senator. It is injurious, as he thinks, to the New 
England man to emigrate to Kansas, if it is a 
slave Territory. Why injurious ? Slavery there, 
says he, would be very detrimental to his inter¬ 
est. The Senator, with his opinions—although, l 
presume, he would not interfere directly for that 
purpose—would, no doubt, be glad to see slavery 
abolished in the States. Suppose his policy 
adopted, then, and his wishes gratified, as his 
sympathy is new excited for the whites, would 
he hereafter invite the free blacks from the South 
into Kansas, or would he prohibit them, as is 
done by several of the non-slaveholding States? 
The colored race, he says, is objectionable as in¬ 
habitants of a Territory, because they are slaves. 
The whites need protection ! And yet, when the 
blacks become free,jhey become more degraded, 
and you exclude thefn from your free States! 
According to this code of ethics the colored race 
is unfit to live in the same community with the 
whites; and all this lamentation aver the wrongs 
and oppression of the poor African is downright 
hypocrisy. The sympathy for the poor negro, 
therefore, is only to be manifested when political 
agitation can be had, and political ends attained, 
by great professions of philanthropy over a run¬ 
away or stolen negro, who has been arrested 
under the fugitive slave law. Of course I do not 
intend to make myself a personal application of 
this expression, but properly and forcibly to char¬ 
acterize the spirit and tendency of the arguments 
of political agitators everywhere. 

But not to pursue this further, all the South 
asks is to be let alone, to bear the sin and evils, 
if any, of slavery, well assured that, if our med¬ 
dlesome neighbors had their own way, they would 
not improve, but greatly injure, the present condi¬ 
tion of things, not only for the whites, but for the 
blacks. It is only necessary to say to those who 
reverence the Constitution, and the venerated 
worthier who framed it, that slavery existed in a 
large portion of the States at its formation: wa* 






5 


recognized and protected by that instrument; and 
degenerate sons should never be permitted to re- j 
pudiate the solemn compacts of worthy sires. | 
And now I would ask, with the opinions which | 
the Fremont party entertain on this subject at the 
present day, if we were in a convention to form a 
new constitution, and their leaders were the repre¬ 
sentatives of the northern people, would they agree 
to the provisions embraced in the present Consti¬ 
tution? Why not? Are they more virtuous, more 
patriotic, more humane, and more wise than their 
venerated fathers? And while we hear a strong 
disclaimer, once in a while, (as from the Senator 
from Connecticut [Mr. Foster] the other day,) 
of all wish to interfere with slavery in the States, 
yet, with his views of the horrors and evils of 
slavery, if it were now a question of the first im¬ 
pression, would he or could he ever consent to 
enter into a confederacy with such a blighting 
curse, and agree to all the guards and guarantees 
of the present Constitution in relation to that 
institution ? I apprehend not. Then what is the 
conclusion ? These men are tired of the Consti¬ 
tution which was formed by our pure and revolu¬ 
tionary ancestors; and, instead of acting in that 
conciliatory and fraternal feeling which prompted 
the compromises of the Constitution on a subject 
upon which there was a difference of opinion, 
now every plan is resorted to to evade its sanc¬ 
tions, and to embarrass its action, with the hope 
of crushing out an institution which they, in 
their intensified philanthropy, suppose wrong; 
and, Pharisee-like, they “ thank God they are not 
like other men. ” 

It is not true that the South desires, as propa¬ 
gandists, to spread the institution of slavery 
everywhere, as they have been often charged; but 
it is true that the South desires to stand upon a 
perfect equality with the North, notwithstanding 
she has a domestic institution not recognized by 
the North in their State organizations; and he 
must be a miserable fanatic who desires to make 
a distinction between the States of this Union, 
and refuse equality of political rights to an indi¬ 
vidual or a State, because such individual is a 
slaveholder, or such State tolerates slavery. 
Could it be expected for one moment that this 
happy Union of ours could be cherished by any 
individuitl or State which placed him or her in 
a position of inferiority ? 

I have said thus much on slavery, because it 
cannot be disguised that this subject underlies 
all the agitation which renders necessary the 
passage of the bill under consideration as an effort 
to restore the quiet of the country which has been 
disturbed. 

And now, Mr. President, the remedy to be 
adopted by Congress is narrowed down to two 
propositions according to my conception. The 
Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] leading 
the way for others to follow, has proposed the 
remedy of admitting Kansas as a.free State under 
the Topeka constitution, by way of amendment 
to the bill first reported by the committee. It is, 
however, due to the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. 
Collamer,] to state that, in his minority report 
of March 12, 1856, he suggested — 

“There is, however, another way to put an end to all 
this trouble tliere, and in the nation, without retracing step.- 
or continuing violence, or hy force compelling obedience to 
tyrannical laws made by toreign force, and that is by 


admitting that Territory as a State with her free consti¬ 
tution.” 

Is it possible that it can be seriously contended 
that this remedy would put an end to all this 
trouble? It seems so; and is urged with all the 
sanctions of the Black Republican convention 
recently held in Philadelphia. This is a distinct 
issue, and requires the advocatesof Mr. Fremont 
to take a position entirely consistent with the gen¬ 
eral principles by which they are governed. I 
assume they are opposed to the Constitution of 
the United States; for I again ask, if they were 
now called on to form a new one, with their 
avowed principles, would they ever agree to the 
compromises of the present? Being opposed to 
the fundamental law, it is not surprising to see 
them countenance and support the violations of 
the laws of Congress and of the Territorial Legis¬ 
lature. It cannot be said, with any semblance of 
truth, that the whole people of the Territory of 
Kansas had an agency in the formation of the 
Topeka constitution. The movement originated 
with a faction; the avowed object was the sub¬ 
version of the legal authority in the Territory, in 
defiance of, and against the wishes of, the Terri¬ 
torial Legislature. The election for delegates was 
held without authority of law, with none of the 
usual securities against fraud and illegal voting, 
and the whole conducted by a party with no one 
differing in opinion to correct, detect, or expose 
the frauds or irregularities that may have been 
practiced. It is claimed that a majority of the 
legal voters in the Territory voted on the adop¬ 
tion of the constitution; but what reliable in¬ 
formation nave we of the fact claimed ? 

Many of those who now sustain this Topeka 
constitution have been engaged in the severest 
reprobation of “ squatter sovereignty;” and the 
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] yes¬ 
terday was delighted with a discovery he sup¬ 
posed he had made, that the bill now under con¬ 
sideration had extinguished what he denominated 
“ squatter sovereignty;” but the only real prop¬ 
osition to assert and exemplify “ squatter sov¬ 
ereignty,” with all the proper objections thereto, 
in naked deformity, is the Topeka constitution. 
And it seems it is recently attracting opposition 
from a source least expected. From indications 
here and elsewhere I infer it is too great an out¬ 
rage upon “ popular sovereignty ”—the true prin¬ 
ciple of the Kansas bill—to be swallowed by all 
those even who countenance this anti-slavery 
crusade against the constitutional rights of the 
South. Is it to be so soon abandon! d after form¬ 
ing the great plank in the Black Republican plat¬ 
form? They resolve, “That Kansas should be 
immediately admitted as a State of the Union 
with her pre ent free constitution.” While the 
Senator from New Hampshire started several 
objections to the bill under consideration, yet it 
is a significant fact, that he did not venture to 
place the “ present free constitution” in comne- 
tition with it. 1 am gratified to find a returning 
sense of law and order among those who but a 
short time since were urging vehemently the adop¬ 
tion of a measure so subversive of all the safe¬ 
guards for the security of civil liberty, and so en- 
tir< ly revolutionary and rebellious in its character. 

Opposed to this is the bill reported from the 
committee, the material features of which are 
taken from the bill introduced by the Senator 

















6 


from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs.] That provides I 
for a fair and impartial enumeration of the bona ; 
fide voters of the Territory; makes stringent i 
provisions to secure the purity and entire freedom I 
of the ballot-box; rejects all test oaths asaqual- ; 
ification for voters; declares all laws in conflict 1 
with the freedom of speech, the liberty of the 
press, and the other fundamental principles of ( 
American liberty, found in the Constitution of 
the United States, to be of no force; prescribes i 
heavy penalties for illegal voting, for intimidation 
or improper interference with the free right of i 
suffrage, and permits the bona fide voters thus 
protected to elect delegates to a convention, who i 
are to determine whether it be or be not expedient < 
to form a Stale constitution; and if they determ- j 
ine in the affirmative, they are authorised to , 
form such constitution with or without slavery, 
as they may determine, for the purpose of being 
admitted into the Union as a State. And it is 
further provided, that the President be clothed 
with power to employ the military force, if ne¬ 
cessary, to secure a faithful execution of the act. 
Can those who favor the Topeka constitution 
complain of the provisions of this bill? They 
claim that the majority of the people are for a 
free State; that is denied. They complain that 
by fraud and violence they have been prevented 
from voting in the Territory; this bill makes 
ample provisions to avoid that. They complain 
of the effect of the Kansas act, which allows a 
few squatters to control the destinies of the State; 
and yet, will they vote against a proposition 
which proposes to obtain a fair expression of the 
opinions of double the number of bona fide in¬ 
habitants than was there when the Topeka con¬ 
stitution was formed, and, in addition to that, 
enables the whole people, and not a mere party, 
"to form the organic law. 

There can be but one objection that I can see. 
They must be unwilling to Ie.ave the question to 
the people of the Territory from a fear that a ma¬ 
jority will not think as they do on the question 
of slavery. Is it desired by them, and have we 
come to that point, that the rights of the people 
are thus to be contemned? that this country is to 
be convulsed on all occasions with the assump- | 
tion of congressional supremacy, and the right 
asserted and enforced that no other slave State is 
to be admitted in this Union ? It is fearfully true 
that this is the tendency of the action of what is 
now a large party at the North. I confess it 
with pain and mortification; but still, as I am a 
hopeful man, l will anticipate a different conclu¬ 
sion from the sober, reflecting masses of my 
northern fellow-citizens. Nothing can be ex¬ 
pected from those politicians who blindly rush to 
the precipice, and who attempt, from vaulting 
ambition, to lead the public sentiment of the 
North. I ani proud to say, and feel the highest 
gratification to know, that amidst all this storm 
and furor, patriotic men are still found at the 
North who cling to the Constitution their fathers 
made—who still are willing to accord to the peo-1 
pie of the Territories the highest privilege of | 
freemen, and who dare to stand in the breach at 
the risk of political sacrifice, and manfully con-j 
tend for the equality of the States, and all "the ! 
constitutional rights of the South, while at. the 
same time they firmly and faithfully sustain all 
the rights of the North. I 


It is also a pleasing reflection to me, that while, 
almost in a body, the anti-Democratic elements 
at the North have fused in opposition, the time- 
honored Democracy, now headed by Mr Buch¬ 
anan, one of the patriotic northern men, who 
knows no North nor South—that Democracy that 
I take pleasure in saying 1 have, through storm 
and sunshine, considered the hope of thecountry, 
now presents the proud spectacle of the only 
national party upon whose success rests, in my 
humble opinion, the safety of the Constitution, 
the peace and continuance of the Union. 

I would not be invidious, nor do I desire to de¬ 
tract from the high moral courage exhibited by 
others, but I must be permitted, in view of the 
gross vituperation heaped upon certain distin¬ 
guished men, to return my sincere thanks to the 
President of the United States, (notwithstanding 
the fierce denunciations to-day of the Senator 
from Ohio,) the honorable Senator from Michigan, 
[Mr. Cass,] and the honorable chairman of the 
Committee on Territories, [Mr. Douglas,] for 
tjieir patriotic devotion to the Constitution and the 
rights of the people, and of the States on this 
vital but deeply exciting subject. 

And now, Mr. President, a few words more in 
regard to the bill reported by the committee. 
Frankness and candor require me to say that I 
had considerable repugnance to the formation of 
a new State with such a small population. The 
honorable Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Colla- 
mer,] in his minority report of the 12th March, 
speaking of the State of Kansas under the Topeka 
constitution, says: 

“ Th<* Constitution fixes no number as necessary: and 
the importance of now settling this question may well jus¬ 
tify Congress in admitting this as a State at this time, espe¬ 
cially as we have good reason to believe that, if admitted 
as a State, and controversy ended, it will immediately fill 
up with a numerous and successful population.” 

If this is a just conclusion of the Senator, under 
a constitution so deficient in every element to 
commend itself to a favorable consideration, how 
much more effectually may we hope to end the 
controversy and give repose, by the just and 
proper provisions of the bill under consideration. 

The free-State men, by their action, have ex,- 
pressed a desire to form a State;and 1 understand 
the pro-slavery citizens are also anxious to change 
the political organization to a State government, 

I do not approve, as an original proposition, 
the qualification of voters so far as to authorize 
unnaturalized persons to vote. I had doubts as 
to the propriety of postponing the election of 
members of the Territorial Legislature, I how¬ 
ever felt no difficulty in assuming the power of 
Congress to prescribe the qualification of voters, 
as a necessary incident to the exercise of the 
power to pass a law to authorize the people of 
the Territory to form a State constitution. In 
regard to permitting persons who have merely 
declared their intention to become citizens, ac¬ 
cording to the naturalization laws, I found the 
| game-provision in the organic Kansas act; and I 
I am assured there are comparatively few such 
persons in the Territory. The bill has been ma- 
j turely framed and considered, and I ought not to 
! expect to have every provision (so diversified 
are our interests and opinions) to square exactly 
with my own peculiar views. 

I have no doubt there are many who will con- 











7 


demn any effort for the pacification of this ques¬ 
tion; but ought not every reasonable man to be 
satisfied with this measure? I look at it as a 
whole. 1 believe it to be an honest effort to 
maintain the Constitution intact, and secure the 
rights of the people; to suppress, as far as prac¬ 
ticable, disorder and strife in Kansas, give repose, 
so far as wise counsels and* prudent action can 
do so to the country; deprive political agitators 
of one great weapon to disturb the quiet of the 
peaceably disposed; and therefore- 1 may be in¬ 
duced to waive all minor objections, to vote 
against all amendments, and support the bill 
cordially, as a great public duty I owe to myself, 
to posterity, to the confiding constituency who 
gave to me my high commission, and to the 
hopes of the lovers of free institutionseverywhere. 


At a subsequent stage of the debate in reply 
to the Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward], 
Mr. REID said: 

I have forborne, Mr. President, to say any¬ 
thing in regard to this important question, because 
I deemed it unnecessary to do so; but perhaps 
I should not perform my duty were I not to say 
what I honestly believe in regard to this sub¬ 
ject. I think, if there is anything that is per¬ 
fectly clear, it is that the framers of the Consti¬ 
tution intended that the several States of this 
Union should regulate and control their domestic 
institutions according to their own will. I under¬ 
stand the Senator from New York, [Mr. Sew¬ 
ard,] and those who act with him, to take the 
ground that they are opposed to slavery. Whether 
the Territory of Kansas shall become a free or a 
slave State, will not make one slave more or less; 
then the opposition to Kansas being admitted 
into the Union as a slave State, is not because, 
by its being a slave State, the number of slaves is 
to be increased. The Senator from New York, 
and those other Senators to whom I have referred, 
take the ground that, under the Constitution, 
neither the Congress of the United States, nor 
any of the States of the Union in which slavery 
does not exist, have a right to interfere with it 
where it does exist; but while they say this, the 
Senator from New York has to-night proclaimed 
that his object in admitting no more slave States 
into the Union is to compel the slave States to 
emancipate their slaves at an earlier day than they 
would otherwise do. Here, then, the Senator 
from New York has proclaimed the doctrine that 
it is the avowed object of himself, and those who 
act with him, to do, by indirection, that which 
the Constitution of the United States expressly 
forbids them to do. 

Now, Mr. President, permit me to say—and I 
give it as a solemn conviction of my judgment— 
that whenever a majority of the people of the 
northern States become prepared to indorse the 
doctrine which has been avowed by the Senator 
from New York, this Union cannot last an hour 
longer. Believing this solemnly, as I do, I think 
I do no more than discharge a duty which I owe 
to our friends at the North,frankly to say to them, 
that, if they adopt this doctrine, and pursue this 
policy, a dissolution of the Union must and will 
ensue. 

I yield to no man in my devotion to a Union, 


according to the Constitution; but when the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States is to be trampled 
under foot, and become a dead letter, no longer 
to be preserved, this Union cannot last; and I 
desire to say to the Senators representing the 
North, if you wish to preserve this Union, meet 
us in the spirit in which our revolutionary an¬ 
cestors met in a common cause in defense of 
liberty; meet us in the spirit in which the framers 
of the Constitution met and framed a Constitu¬ 
tion, discarding all local questions, placing them¬ 
selves upon a common ground, to perpetuate the 
principles of freedom among white men, and to 
establish a Government of freedom and prosperity 
which has had no parallel on the face of the 
earth. I invoke northern Senators, and the people 
of the North, to go home and take care of their 
own race there. If you have blacks, as there are 
in all of the free States, extend to them your 
charity and philanthropy, but let us alone, and 
let our colored population alone, for they are well 
fed and well clothed. If they are to us an injury, 
if they retard our prosperity, we shall, in good 
time, discover it, and you cannot drive us into 
the emancipation of our slaves until we choose 
to accomplish it by our own free will. You make 
a great mistake, for, as you increase the violence 
of agitation on this subject, so in proportion you 
retard emancipation. You cannot drive freemen 
into your notions. We do not go among you to 
interfere with the rights of your property; we do 
not go among you to lecture you in regard to 
your duty at home; we do not go among you to 
excite a portion of your population to rebellion 
and insurrection; we simply ask you to let us 
alone as we let you alone. But this doctrine, 
that you will not give an equal opportunity to 
people from all parts of the Union to occupy a 
Territory and form a State constitution according 
to their own will, because you desire to force us to 
do a thing which the Constitution of the United 
States forbids you to do, will not be tolerated. 

Mr. President, I rose merely for the purpose 
of warning our friends at the North that, if they 
desire the perpetuation of this Union, and the 
maintenance of free institutions, they should be 
careful not to adopt and to carry into execution 
the views entertained by the Senator from New 
York, the Senator from Massachusetts, and those 
who cooperate with them; for as certainly as any¬ 
thing can possibly be, if that state of things is to 
be forced upon the South, this Union cannot last, 
and the proudest Government and the happiest 
people upon the face of the earth may find them¬ 
selves in anarchy and confusion, and the fairest 
hopes of those who are the advocates of free gov¬ 
ernment throughout the earth must be blasted 
and destroyed forever. I am no alarmist. I have 
not risen for the purpose of threatening a disso¬ 
lution of the Union. I trust this Union may last 
as long as time endures; but I know that if these 
sentiments which have been avowed, and which 
gentlemen threaten they will carry out, are per¬ 
sisted in, this Government cannot last. Believing 
so, Mr. President, I have felt it to be my duty to 
say so. 

Mr. WILSON. I want to put a question to 
the honorable Senator from North Carolina, be¬ 
fore he takes his seat. I want to know precisely 
what he means. Does he mean to say, that if 
the people of the United States, the free people 















* congress 


8 


of the United States, elect a majority of the House 
of Representatives, and secure, in a few years, a 
majority of the Senate, and elect a President of 
the United States, so as to place the executive 
and legislative branches of the Government in the 
hands of men who believe that the Constitution 
of the United States gives the National Govern¬ 
ment power to govern the Territories of the Uni¬ 
ted States so as to prohibit the existence of sla¬ 
very in them, and that power shall be exercised- 
the southern slaveholding States will go out of 
this Union ? 

Mr. REID. T will answer the Senator from 
Massachusetts, and I will answer him irr this 
v/ay. I think that no candid and impartial man 
can have witnessed this discussion and the turn 
it has taken without beins: convinced that that 
Senator bases his action here solely upon the 
ground that Kansas shall never be admitted as a 
slaveholding State of this Union, under any 
circumstances. Now, I desire to know if the 
Senator will, under any circumstances, vote for 
the admission of Kansas into this Union with a 
constitution ‘oleratin? slavery? 

Mr. WILSON. I will not. 

Mr. REID. Then, sir, what does the Sena¬ 
tor do? Does he not violate every principle of 
the Constitution of the United States? Does he : 
not violate every principle of free government r 
And will he ask us to be bound by the constitu¬ 
tion when he repudiates and spurns it from him ? 
I, sir, in my public position as a representative, 
in the whole course of my life, have never made 
a distinction between a free and a slave State, 
when the people fairly formed their constitution 
and asked for admission into the Union, because, 
in doing so, I should have regarded that I had 
violated the Constitution of the United States, 
and was unworthy of being a member of this 
Government. I do not desire to remain in this 
Union and take advantage of all I can get under 
the Constitution, and yet disavow that Constitu¬ 
tion, disregard it, and set it at naught whenever 
it is against me. That is not the spirit in which 
the Constitution was formed. Here you have 
two Territories, Kansas and Nebraska. Into 
one of those Territories the people have gone 
and settled. There southern men have made no 
contests whatever. They have not shown a fac¬ 
tious disposition to create discord, and to bring 
about anarchy, revolution, bloodshed, and every¬ 
thing else which is inconsistent with order and 
good government; but in a Territory adjoining 
one of the slave States of this Union, where it 
was natural to suppose that slave-owners would 
settle, there is every disposition shown to throw 


li 



1 obstacles in the wav, to cause revolution cu»u 
anarchy, to divide the people of that Territory, 
and to pr vent th.m f r '>m forming a government 
to suit themselves. Gentleman may talk as they 
choose, but it is evident that it is not on the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill, it is not on the 
Missoarian’s vote, but it is on the result and 
conclusion at whi^h the people of that Terri¬ 
tory have arrived, that these gentlemen base 
their action. 

If M assachuset's ana Missouri had carried 
their millions of men and imported them there 
with Sharpe’s rifles, and had shot down a hun¬ 
dred thousand persons, yet if that government 
had been formed prohibiting savery, the Senator 
from Massachusetts and the Senator from New 
York would have been found in favor of it. Their 
objection now is based upon the fact that Kansas 
is likely to become a slave S t£lt0 9 and not upon 
the manner in which the government there has 
been conducted. This must be evident to every 
one who has impartially noticed the course of 
this debate. The gentlemen have long claimed 
that they had the majority there un:d you pro¬ 
pose to permit them to have another trial, and 
now they admit that they have not a majority, 
but yet they insist that they ought to have a con¬ 
stitution in opposition to the majority. The Sen¬ 
ator from New York talks a great deal about 
freedom: and from what I can learn from that 
Senator the definition of freedom with him is, to 
obey his will. Sir, that is freedom ! Now, accord¬ 
ing to his definition of freedom, you will never 
have freedom in Kansas until you have a consti¬ 
tution there which inhibits slavery, no matter 
whether the people are in favor of it or not; and 
that he will term freedom! 

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massa¬ 
chusetts whether, after his avowal that, if Kansas 
adopts a constitution tolerating slavery, he and 
his people will not admit Kansas into tHe Union 
because she is a slave State, he can ask a southern 
man to come up here and vote for the admission 
' of free States, as he will not vote for the admis¬ 
sion of slave States? Will he, in regard to Ne- 
1 braska, require me to vote for such a government 
as the people of that Territory mar adopt, when 
he will not vote for the admission of Kansas witl\ 
such a government as a majority of the people 
there may adopt? If he desires to carry out this 
government in that spirit, does he expect that the 
southern people will submit to it ? I out it to him 
as a candid man, could he ask them to do it? 
Will he with impunity violate and trample under 
foot the Constitution of his country, and then 
come up and ask me to abide by it afterwards? 















